DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NARNAUL
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.32 of 2011
DATE OF INSTITUTION:- 27.01.2011
DATE OF ORDER:- 12.01.2015
Jasbir Singh Dhillon son of Shri Attar Singh Dhillon, Caste Jat, Resident of Mohalla Shivaji Nagar, Old Court Narnaul, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mohindergarh
……………COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
- Haryana Urban Development Authority through Managing Director, Sector-6, Panchkula (Haryana)
- Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari
………….. OPPOSITE PARTIES
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE :- Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Usha Yadav, Member
L.K. Nandwani, Member
Present:- Shri Jasbir Singh Dhillon, complainant in person.
Shri P. C. Gupta, Advocate for the opposite parties
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
According to the complaint, brief facts are that the complainant was allotted a residential plot No.159 area 1 Kanal (14x30=420 Sq. meters) in Sector-1 Part-1, Urban Estate, HUDA, Narnaul by the opposite parties vide allotment letter bearing Memo No.4448 dated 10.07.2003 for the value of Rs.708120/- at the rate of 1686/- per Sq. meter. The complainant deposited the earnest money of Rs.106468/- through bank draft dated 01.08.2003 along with other required documents with the opposite parties. Thereafter, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.275000/- through cheque/ bank draft No.078141 dated 23.01.2004 and Rs.250000/- through cheque No.078389 dated 17.04.2004, both drawn on Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Narnaul with opposite party No.2. The opposite parties neither executed conveyance deed nor delivered the possession of aforesaid plot to the complainant despite his repeated requests. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties have issued a letter bearing memo No.9989 dated 27.12.2007 to him to pay enhanced price of Rs.186959/- at the rate of 445.14 per Sq. meter, which is wrong, illegal and liable to be withdrawn. The complainant had earlier filed a Consumer Complaint No.21 of 10.01.2008 before this Forum in which the opposite parties, for the first time, disclosed that the allotment of plot to the complainant was at the rate of Rs.990/- per Sq. yard and levy for enhanced compensation was being imposed at the rate of Rs.372.19 per Sq. yard (Rs.445.14/- per Sq. Meter) thereby totaling the rate at Rs.1362.19/- per Sq. yard, while the opposite parties had already recovered the amount from the complainant at the rate of Rs.1686/- per Sq. meter for the said plot. The said complaint was decided vide order dated 10.12.2008 in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties. The copy of said order was received by the representative of the opposite parties on 12.12.2008. For compliance of aforesaid order the complainant has filed execution petition U/s 25 and 37 of C.P. Act before the Forum which is pending. When the complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties for compliance of order dated 10.12.2008, their officers got annoyed with the complainant and issued another letter bearing memo No.Z-002/E-0005/UE-011/DE Let/0000001843 dated 08.12.2010 asking the complainant to pay further enhanced compensation of Rs.188391/- as mentioned in Para No.10 of the complaint. The calculation sheet supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant reveals that the plots of general categories were allotted at the rate of Rs.990/- per Sq. yard and levy for enhanced compensation from general category is being imposed at the rate of Rs.448.55/- per Sq. meter. The opposite parties have recovered the excess price of the plot from the complainant at the rate of Rs.1686/- per Sq. meter instead of the actual price of Rs.990/- per Sq. yard and same is liable to be refunded. The complainant has prayed to quash the impugned levy imposed by the opposite parties upon him vide impugned letter dated 08.12.2010, to direct the opposite parties to make refund of excess amount, recovered from him, with interest and to award damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
2. The opposite parties filed their joint reply stating, inter-alia, therein that the complainant has not asked them to execute conveyance deed. The possession of the plot in question has already been offered to the complainant, but he is not taking over the possession of the same at his own sweet will. As per term and condition No.9 of the allotment letter, an allottee is fully bound to pay the enhanced cost of the plot as and when the same is enhanced from time to time by the competent court/ authority. Thus, the opposite parties are entitled to recover the enhanced cost from the complainant in accordance with law. The order dated 10.12.2008 passed by this Forum in earlier complaint had been challenged by the opposite parties before Hon’ble State Commission. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
3. To make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 his own supporting affidavit, Annexure C-2 copy of allotment letter dated 10.07.2003, Annexure C-3 copy of notice/ memo No.9989 dated 27.12.2007 for payment of additional price of plot, Annexure C-4 copy of order dated 10.12.2008 passed by this Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 2008, Annexure C-5 copy of memo No.Z0002/E0005/UE011/DELET/ 0000001843 dated 08.12.2010, Annexure C-6 letter No.36 dated 04.11.2011, Annexure C-7 copy of calculation sheet, Annexure C-8 copy of Possession Certificate, Annexure C-9 copy of order dated 22.07.2011 passed in First Appeal No.961 of 18.07.2011 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, Annexure C-10 copy of order dated 22.07.2011 passed in Revision Petition No.66 of 19.07.2011 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and Annexure C-11 copy of memo No.3574 dated 21.06.2012.
4. In reply thereto, the opposite parties have placed on record Annexure R-1 supporting affidavit of Suraj Bhan Sharma, Accountant office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Rewari and Annexure R-2 copy of statement of account of Plot No.159, Sector-1, Part-I, Narnaul.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.
6. Complainant in person, being advocate by profession, reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that memo dated 08.12.2010 Annexure C-5 was issued by the opposite parties to him to pay the enhanced price of his plot in question amounting to Rs.1,88,391/-. He submitted that the said memo Annexure C-5 of the opposite parties is wrong and illegal and be quashed in view of the calculation sheet Annexure C-7 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, because the opposite parties have already charged the excess price of the plot from the complainant according to the calculation made in calculation sheet Annexure C-7.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the opposite parties have every right to claim the enhanced price of the plot as per the term and condition No.9 of allotment letter Annexure C-2. In support of his contention, he relied upon the citations East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Limited Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Faridabad 2003 (4) RCR (Civil) 36, Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Suresh Chhokar and others 2010 (2) RCR (Civil) 646 and H.U.D.A. Gurgaon Versus Rekha Singh and another 1 (1994) CPJ 197.
8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments put forth by the parties and written arguments filed on behalf of the parties and also examined the relevant record carefully. The complainant has challenged the demand of enhanced cost of plot in question made by the opposite parties from him vide memo dated 08.12.2010 Annexure C-5 on the basis of calculation sheet Annexure C-7. The detailed explanation to understand each and every point of the calculation sheet Annexure C-7 has not come on the record from either side. The criteria for fixing the price of the plot has not been mentioned in the said calculation sheet. The opposite parties have only produced the affidavit Annexure R-1 and statement of account Annexure R-2 in its evidence. The opposite parties have contended that the compensation for acquired land has been enhanced by the court order, on the basis of which the opposite parties have claimed the enhanced cost from the complainant. But no copy of said order/ judgment has been placed by the opposite parties on the record.
9. Whether the opposite parties are entitled to charge the enhanced cost of the plot from the complainant vide memo dated 08.12.2010 Annexure C-5 ?. This issue cannot be decided on the basis of material on record. Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in case of East India Cotton Mfg. Co. Limited’s case (Supra) and Haryana Urban Development Authority’s case (Supra) relied upon by the opposite parties are applicable to the cases filed by the allottees in the Civil Courts and has no bearing on the cases filed before the Consumer Fora. In H.U.D.A., Gurgaon’s case (Supra) the Hon’ble State Commission held that “Yet another aspect which deserves highlighting in this context is the fact that the consumer jurisdiction operates in a limited field and the powers of Redressal agencies are confined by the provisions of the Act. It is somewhat elementary that the consumer Courts would have no power to cast any doubt about the validity of any Act or statutory regulations made thereunder on the supposed ground, of the violation of either of fundamental rights or the Constitution. That power is the province of the hire echelons of the judiciary like the Supreme Court or the High Court who alone can strike down as statutory provisions as ultravires of the Constitution or of a Act of Parliament. Indeed the redressal agencies under the Act have not the least jurisdiction to set aside any law or rules and regulations once validly enacted. Indeed they have to take & apply the law as it is not to frow upon the same. Therefore, the District Forum erred in seeking to doubt the letter or the spirit of valid statutory provisions.”
10. In view of the aforesaid legal preposition held by the Hon’ble State Commission, we hold that this District Forum has no jurisdiction to set aside memo dated 08.12.2010 Annexure C-5. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to challenge the impugned demand notice/ memo in question for enhancement of the cost of plot in question under the provisions of law, if so advised. The complainant can take the shelter of case law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industrial Institution, Civil Appeal No.4193 of 1995 decided on 04.04.1995 to take the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for limitation purposes. With these observations, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of.
Announced:-
12.01.2015
(Smt. Usha Yadav) (L. K. Nandwani) (Rajesh Jindal)
Member Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Narnaul
